Militants alter tactics:

[Praxius]

Insurgents hitting American forces outside Baghdad to avoid firepower:
The ChronicleHerald.ca

Insurgents staged a bold daylight assault against a U.S. combat post north of Iraq’s capital Monday — first striking with a suicide car bomb, then firing on soldiers pinned down in a former Iraqi police station. At least two soldiers were killed and 17 wounded.

.....The head-on attack north of Baghdad was notable for both its tactics and target. Sunni insurgents have mostly used hit-and-run ambushes, roadside bombs or mortars on U.S. troops and avoided direct assaults on fortified military compounds to avoid U.S. firepower. It also appeared to fit a pattern emerging among the suspected Sunni militants: trying to hit U.S. forces harder outside the capital rather than confront them on the streets during a massive American-led security operation.

As expected, the troop surge isn't going to help much, imo..... they'll just adapt in whatever way they can to undermine the goals. Even if they can secure Bagdad for a while, it's not the country being secured, and once the troops leave, it'll all be for nothing.

Additional Information:
Iraqi militants change tactics, carnage continues
Iraqi militants change tactics, carnage continues

Meanwhile, the U.S.-Iraqi effort to calm Baghdad has so far resulted nearly 100 casualties in two days, and government spokesmen who were predicting the operation's success have fallen silent. ..... About 40 Iraqis died Monday in a mortar attack on a Shia area, killed by a suicide bomber on a bus and in shootings. Gunmen stopped a minivan outside of Baghdad and shot all 13 occupants, including an elderly woman and two boys. The gunmen accused the people of failing to support al-Qaeda in Iraq, police and witnesses said. On Sunday, 62 people were killed and more than 130 injured in twin car bombs at an open-air market in a mostly Shia area of New Baghdad. It was the deadliest attack in Baghdad since U.S. and Iraqi forces launched security sweeps last week.

[Boetie]

I hope everyone understands that the bombings and attacks have to continue for a reason. It's not because the freedom fightersl really thinks they can win a military battle against the occupiers. It's because they have to keep the world's attention on them. If they don't then all kinds of horrible atrocities can be committed against them because no one is watching.

The word is out with the people of Iraq that Bush Jr has no intention of leaving, no intention of acting in a humanitarian manner.

The prove of the above statement is the 14 permanent bases build over there and Bush Jr's blessings on the use of torture not to mention Bush Jr constantly sticking his nose into Iraq's domestic affairs.

[RickSp]

It should also be noted that these were Sunni insurgents not funded by Iran. Bush has been so busy getting ready for the next failed war that he is ignoring the basic nature of this one.

It is also worth noting that the insurgents are demonsrtaing ever more coordination and planning. Instead of weakening, they longer we stay, the stronger they grow. Anyone notice a trend here?

[Osborn F Enready]

It also should be noted this is a war against guerilla forces and tactics, and we are still not dealing with it correctly.

[Gods_Mercenary]

It should also be noted :) that a war against guerilla and terrorist tactics is guarenteed to fail unless you are willing to be utterly ruthless, which we are not.

[Boetie]

It should also be noted that such a success against guerilla forces and tactics could cause the entire tribe of Sunnis to rise up as the people of Algeria did when the French succeeded in destroying the FLN.

If the entire tribe of Sunnis were to rise up in the same way as the Algerians did we will be forced to show the world our card which we have been holding close to our chest and what will the card show? Colonialism perhaps. So much for freedom and democracy.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Exactly, we should gety out of there if we are unwilling to take the chance of trying to completely destroy the inhabitant's resistance.

[Praxius]

It should also be noted that there still hasn't been set a deadline for troop withdrawl.

[Osborn F Enready]

Gods Merc said: It should also be noted that a war against guerilla and terrorist tactics is guarenteed to fail unless you are willing to be utterly ruthless, which we are not.

I agree, 100%. The point you fail to mention though is that the public won't support this ruthlessness unless it sees the threat as CLEAR and IMMINENT which is not what brought us to Iraq, in the middle of a civil war, or to remove Saddam.

Why launch a war you know can't be effective, because it doesn't have the factual basis for support of its people that make up the army, and national collective?

[Duke1985]

I'm just going to throw this in here, I believe the only country to successfully march on the middle east was the British. Other than that every other country that has tried has failed. Some historian told me that the other day.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Why launch a war you know can't be effective, because it doesn't have the factual basis for support of its people that make up the army, and national collective

Because you're incompetant and enjoy denying facts?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: Duke1985 I'm just going to throw this in here, I believe the only country to successfully march on the middle east was the British. Other than that every other country that has tried has failed. Some historian told me that the other day.

They didn't succeed for long, either. The british played the internal angers skillfully, but they inevitably became the target of everybodies anger.

[Osborn F Enready]

Gods Merc said: Because you're incompetant and enjoy denying facts?

DING DING DING DING DING!

Correct.

Great explanation of Bush policy overall I would say.

[Duke1985]

The one thing I can say for Bush is the man has some sack. He knows his approval rating is way low, a good deal (if not the majority) of this country is ready to get out of the middle east, and he's just like, "whatever keep going"
That does take some balls.

I will say I don't think he walked into the white house and said, "How can I drive this country into the ground." So I think he's doing what he thinks is the right course of action, or at least what his cabinet thinks the right thing to do is.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Boetie I hope everyone understands that the bombings and attacks have to continue for a reason. It's not because the freedom fightersl really thinks they can win a military battle against the occupiers. It's because they have to keep the world's attention on them. If they don't then all kinds of horrible atrocities can be committed against them because no one is watching. The word is out with the people of Iraq that Bush Jr has no intention of leaving, no intention of acting in a humanitarian manner. The prove of the above statement is the 14 permanent bases build over there and Bush Jr's blessings on the use of torture not to mention Bush Jr constantly sticking his nose into Iraq's domestic affairs.

Freedom Fighters? That's rich

You're right. These suicide bombing, IED planting, sneak attacking mongrels are not all bad. They want freedom!

Freedom for what, one asks? Just don't!

It doesn't matter what freedom they want, or who they would leave alive to enjoy their version of freedom. No matter how many heads they carve off the living, screaming victims, no matter how many bodies they burn alive and drag through the streets, the fact that they are fighting the “imperialist” forces of the evil U.S. and the corrupt, elected “puppet” government of Iraq is enough for them to earn the title of Freedom Fighter!

[Praxius]

Quote by: Apeman81 Freedom Fighters? That's rich You're right. These suicide bombing, IED planting, sneak attacking mongrels are not all bad. They want freedom! Freedom for what, one asks? Just don't! It doesn't matter what freedom they want, or who they would leave alive to enjoy their version of freedom. No matter how many heads they carve off the living, screaming victims, no matter how many bodies they burn alive and drag through the streets, the fact that they are fighting the “imperialist” forces of the evil U.S. and the corrupt, elected “puppet” government of Iraq is enough for them to earn the title of Freedom Fighter!

If you are up against a much more stronger enemy who has different values then you and they are trying to impose them on you, do you think conventional warfare will work? How else do you expect them to fight for their beliefs? Tatics that you view as terrorist or inhumane, etc (whatever you believe) are just tactics that are working against your forces.

I find it very hypocritical when people from the US bitch out their tactics as being terrorist or uncoventional, when you guys did the exact same thing against the British in the Revolutionary War. You're troops did not stand in line and march up to the British and went gun for gun..... you guys invented the Militia and the current way of warfare we used today, but to the British, it not only wasn't gentlemanly-like, they treated your soldiers as criminals, and therefore had not POW rights...... sound fimiliar?

And now your government is doing exactly the same thing that your government fought against.

[Duke1985]

Quote by: Praxius If you are up against a much more stronger enemy who has different values then you and they are trying to impose them on you, do you think conventional warfare will work? How else do you expect them to fight for their beliefs? Tatics that you view as terrorist or inhumane, etc (whatever you believe) are just tactics that are working against your forces. I find it very hypocritical when people from the US bitch out their tactics as being terrorist or uncoventional, when you guys did the exact same thing against the British in the Revolutionary War. You're troops did not stand in line and march up to the British and went gun for gun..... you guys invented the Militia and the current way of warfare we used today, but to the British, it not only wasn't gentlemanly-like, they treated your soldiers as criminals, and therefore had not POW rights...... sound fimiliar?

Don't forget the Canadians played too.

But I agree with you, they are doing what they can.
However aren't they targeting just as many civilians as military targets?
If I was a freedom fighter I wouldn't be killing my country men, I'd avoid it like the plague.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Praxius If you are up against a much more stronger enemy who has different values then you and they are trying to impose them on you, do you think conventional warfare will work? How else do you expect them to fight for their beliefs? Tatics that you view as terrorist or inhumane, etc (whatever you believe) are just tactics that are working against your forces. I find it very hypocritical when people from the US bitch out their tactics as being terrorist or uncoventional, when you guys did the exact same thing against the British in the Revolutionary War. You're troops did not stand in line and march up to the British and went gun for gun..... you guys invented the Militia and the current way of warfare we used today, but to the British, it not only wasn't gentlemanly-like, they treated your soldiers as criminals, and therefore had not POW rights...... sound fimiliar?

We did not plant roadside bombs for anyone to trip. We did not car bomb markets, killing whoever got in the way of the blast. We did not capture loyalists to cut off their heads while the screamed. etc etc.

If you can't be accurate, why make the comparison

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Duke1985 Don't forget the Canadians played too. But I agree with you, they are doing what they can. However aren't they targeting just as many civilians as military targets? If I was a freedom fighter I wouldn't be killing my country men, I'd avoid it like the plague.

You evidence the flaw in the logic. And you may note that there is given no response in the question, Freedom do do what? And for whom?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Duke1985 I'm just going to throw this in here, I believe the only country to successfully march on the middle east was the British. Other than that every other country that has tried has failed. Some historian told me that the other day.

In the the First Anglo-Afghan War in 1838, the British with an army of up to 30,000 mixed troops marched victorious into Afghanistan scattering the local tribes before them. When they retreated in 1842, there was only one survivor.

Interesting commentary on foriegn armies in Afghanistan.